Hambantota District Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa committed an offence of Contempt of the Bribery Commission by allegedly disrespecting the authority by failing to appear before the Commission on May 26, Bribery Commission complained to the Supreme Court. Director General Dilrukshi Dias Wickremasinghe PC seeking to initiate the contempt proceedings complained to the Supreme Court Parliamentarian Namal [...]

News

Namal charged with contempt of bribery body by failing to appear before it

View(s):

Hambantota District Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa committed an offence of Contempt of the Bribery Commission by allegedly disrespecting the authority by failing to appear before the Commission on May 26, Bribery Commission complained to the Supreme Court.

Director General Dilrukshi Dias Wickremasinghe PC seeking to initiate the contempt proceedings complained to the Supreme Court Parliamentarian Namal Rajapaksa without reasonable cause failed to appear before the commission and failed to produce an affidavit in connection with the investigations on his assets.

Singed by the Chairman Jutice T.B. Weerasuriya, the determination of the commission requested the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings against the Parliamentarian under the Article 105(3) of the Constitution.

The Commission stated that it commenced an investigation on to the assets of the parliamentarian which would be an indictable offence under the Bribery Act.

The investigations revealed evidence to substantiate an offence of Bribery.

Apart from routine investigations steps were taken for the purpose of ascertain the truth of the matters being investigated the parliamentarian was requested by notice dated December 14, 2015 to produce an affidavit on January 20, 2016, it stated.

Namal Rajapksa MP by his letter dated January 19, 2016 had requested further time to send the affidavit and the commission granted further time until March 15, it further stated. However, the on March 15, he had requested copy of the complaint from the commission.

The commission wrote him that it could not provide a copy, as he was not entitled for it and further requested to submit an affidavit before April 17 which had not been complied with. But the content of the letter was disputed by Jayantha Weerasinghe PC on behalf of Namal Rajapaksa and by a letter dated May 25 he had replied to the summons and objected to its legality.

Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.